Are today's educational institutes only interested in money?

i have observed that with a large number of institutions opening up, the value of learning is decreasing. the institutes cost high price but the quality of students is degrading. the institutes focus on getting the students n not their quality..
so what are your view points on this?

Mar 14 2013:
I think that the problem is more or less situated in the belief that everyone should be able to enjoy higher education. While I aploud this idea, I also question the way in which it is executed. Here in Belgium, higher education is highly funded. It costs less then 1000€ to enroll for a year at university (books not included off course). Because of this, a lot more people have access to university. Yet, I have seen that it also makes people less aware of the concequences of their choices. I have seen many of my fellow students take a less than serious attitude towards their studies or take the opportunities that they have been given for granted. This I think is wy the quality of students seems to be degrading.

Personally I also think that institutes have a certain 'interest' in students' money but from what I hear that is only because the government forces them. (This off course is the Belgium situation).

Mar 14 2013:
hello Kim..thank you for your reply..
yea true...people feel everyone should get education....but there should be a proper way because everyone is not of the same level...
n yep..students lose interest when they dont take up a course they are interested in..
how can we solve it??

Mar 14 2013:
I think to solve this issue we should not be afraid to question some basic values, no matter how well ment that they are.
We believe everyone should get education, but the question is: is this a choice or an obligation? When education becomes duty instead of privilige, then automatically (some) people will lose interest. So really, we should make it a privilige again. Not in the way of 'preserved for the happy few' but rather in a way that makes students feel like they've somehow earned it, that it is an honour to learn.

Second, you are right in saying that not everyone is of the same level. I don't know how things are done where you live but here there is hardly any direction given on how to chose a future career. I know that in some countries you have to see a careercounselor (or something) who gives advice based on your results, attitude and so on. I know that some would see this as patronizing but I have a different view. If done by the right people, it can be a great advantage. It should not mean, however, that you become restricted by it. One should still have free choice.

Thirth, if you really want to solve it: start with the parents! For god's sake, I sat in class with students (in highschool) who would get grounded if their grades were lower than A-. My parents raised me to make my own choices. Even if I asked my father what he could see me become he would refuse to answer me and told me to make my own choices. There are so many parents out there who tell their children that they have to be a docter or an engineer, or else they would be disappointed.

fourth and last; change the educational system. People sit in college to get a degree without really being interested because the system taught us to 'remember' rather than to actually learn. History, my beloved subject, is a key example. We learn dates and fact but not the lessons, not the stories. If people were allowed to explore rather than to coldly 'analyze', we would stand a much better chance.

Mar 14 2013:
hello kim..
1- education shouldnt b an obligation....we should encourage ppl to learn what they like
2- well i feel we know our potential better than anyone else...
so why should we go for a career counsellor? no doubt many get help frm them
3- hahaha...thts true....even my dad always told me to do what i wanted..
4- yea...students look to score rather than to learn..
so thanks for this..

Mar 13 2013:
You have public and private universities which focus a lot of their money on research, and I believe those still provide good educations and have good acceptance criteria. However, there are for-profit universities which receive a lot of flak because they are most interested in making money, especially through government backed student loans. They are known to let anyone in who can fill out some paperwork, and they offer a really easy degree.

You can search up "for profit universities" and do a little research on your own. Rule of thumb: if the college advertises on TV, be wary because it could be most interested in your money.

I still think public and private not-for-profit universities are just as competitive now as they used to be, if not more.

Mar 18 2013:
Definitely not, actually. There are hundreds more public and private not-for-profit universities. The for-profit ones with no acceptance criteria have a more notable public image because they advertise on TV.

Mar 15 2013:
Vishesh, The short answer is yes. Universities are big business and are run poorly. They (in the USA) get billions from their state, millions from students fees, tuition, etc, millions from sales, million from books, million from labs, grants, research grants, TV sports contracts, donations, and the beat goes on ..... So with billions coming in each year they are always broke and asking for more money next year. They are like governments ... they do not understand budgets. Here in the states we always make the money available as it is in the state Constitution that we will.

At what point should there be consequences for lousy leadership and poor management.

We are seeing a rise in on line education in the USA ... they are often refered to as diploma mills. However, they are accrediated and the diploma is valid. The founder of the University of Phoenix in my state of Arizona is a billionare as he provides a low cost service that meets a need ... the graduates ability is however in question by many and hiring authorities take this with a grain of salt.

I doubt if the same would apply to MIT or Stanford as their standards are high and their product meets expectations.

Courses in Elvis the early years serve what purpose in the education of the student .... money grabbing at its worst.

Mar 13 2013:
Are you suggesting that institutions of learning are lowerng ther standards for admission or that, with new institutions opening up, there are more "seats" available which are filled with people with lower qualifications than formerly would have been the minimum for college students?

Mar 14 2013:
hello Fritzie..
yess...thats what i am trying to say...
i agree that we need more institutions to provide education to more students...but do u feel that this makes quality graduates??
n a student of lower grade, getting graduated from a lower grade institution would have a rare chance of getting a job as compared to the good ones....
what do u think?

Mar 14 2013:
There are several dimensions to this question. One is that many people rise to levels one might not have expected when they have the opportunity for education.So I think it is beneficial for students to have the chance to go to an institution of higher learning where they can take off from wherever they are.

I believe also that institutions should be clear with people about what they would likely expect from an education there.

Two examples come immediately to mind. One is that in the US there are many more students going to law school, at great expense than there will be jobs in law available when they graduate. I think it is imperative that the law schools share with prospective students their data on the career trajectories of their recent graduates so that students can take that account in their decisions.

Everyone graduating from a top tier institution may get a job. But the statistics will look entirely different for the bottom third of law schools. Arts schools too have been subject to recent discipline in this area. In particular, if I remember correctly, government units that subsidize student financial aid have raised the issue to these schools that it is unconscionable to let students take on the levels of debt, and for them to take on so many students, given the poor ability of graduates to get work in that field.

Mar 14 2013:
thank you Fritzie..
yeah students can take off from wherever they are...
but it has to be limited at some point..
for example a student who doesnt do well at a particular stage, would mean that he is not eligible for next level courses...but if a university offers a seat he would get admitted into it n take the same knowledge which other good students do....
so there has to b a way to get different students at the same level, before higher education...
what do u say?

Mar 14 2013:
I have a feeling I am not understanding something in what you are expressing here.

Let's take a first rate school like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology or Yale. Are you worried they are letting students into classes that are not ready for them? If they were, those people would not do well enough in the entry level class to be admitted for credit into the following class. If you have not passed the prerequisite course, you cannot take the advanced class for credit. You may be able to audit for your own interest.

Practically speaking, a student who tries a major for which he is woefully unprepared will switch his major to something that works better for him.

Or are you talking about a new college down the street that will admit anyone willing to pay? A student arrives and signs up for calculus but cannot understand very much because he never learned algebra.

In which situation are you thinking someone "would take in the same knowledge that the good students do?"

Are you worried that the unprepared student will interfere with the learning of more prepared students?

In terms of your other question of whether you can get different students to the same level before college, an institution could choose- and some do- to pour near limitless resources into those who are behind while neglecting the faster learner. But there is no guarantee that different students would be at the same level after such an effort, in part because the faster learning students and their parents will tend to be resourceful in seeking opportunities for those students to learn despite the institution's choices. Or at least that is my experience.

Mar 14 2013:
the Massachussetts or Yale are genuine universities..they are ranked high n they have good screening tests....u have private universities there..
here on the major part, we have colleges affiliated to one universities...so no matter in which college a student is reading, he learns the same topics n writes the same exams....
now a new college (that takes students anyone willing to pay) and a reputed college, both are teaching the same...but the levels of students learning are different of both the colleges....
well this is how it happens here.....
are u getting my point?

Mar 14 2013:
Who does it hurt that students hear the same teaching and take the same tests? If the teaching and tests are at the level for the prepared students, the unprepared are learning a great deal less, as the curriculum is not adjusted to their needs.

If instead the shared curriculum is adjusted to be lower to meet the needs of the lower students, the well prepared students are short-changed.

I have read and heard that in lower education in India, schools are more inclined to teach at the level of the best students and let the weak students get lost. Is that the same in college?

Mar 15 2013:
yea...so the course should be planned accordingly for the good n weak students....
i won't compare schools n colleges but in colleges they just dont ask you to get lost for poor result because we can reappear the tests without wasting a year in many courses...!!